## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2007

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. Ingmar Eloy Gillon, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 15, 2010 Filed: June 18, 2010

___________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ingmar Eloy Gillon was sentenced to 360 months in prison for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); and for possessing with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing cocaine base while on pretrial release, in viola tion of 18 U.S.C. § 3147(1) and 21 U.S.C.§ 841(a)(1). The sentence was allocated as follows: 120 months for the felon-inpossession violation, a 320-month concurrentsentence for the drug violation, and a 40-month consecutive sentence for committing the offense while on pretrial release.1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. -2- In 2009, the district court 1 applied 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Guidelines Amendment 706 to recalculate Gillon’s sentence. The c ourt subtracted two levels from Gillon’s total offense level, reduced the Guidelines sentence for his drug violation from 320 months to 284 months (the bottom of the range applicable to the reduced offense level), and left the balance of Gillon’s sentence unmodified, for a new total sentence of 324 months. Gillon appeals, a nd having conducted denovo review, see United States v. Tolliver , 570 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir. 2009), we affirm.
By sentencing Gillon at the bottom of th e reduced Guidelines range, the court gave him the maximum sentencing re duction allowed under Amendment 706 and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1), (c) (in determ ining reduction under § 3582(c) and policy statement, court shall dete rmine amended Guidelines range that would have been applicable if Amendment 706 had been in effect at time defendant was sentenced), (b)(2)(A) (court shall not reduce term of imprisonment to less than minimum of amended Guidelines range determined under (b)(1)). Gillon argues that United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), would permit a great er reduction. This argument is foreclosed by our precedent, see United States v. Starks , 551 F.3d 839, 84-43 (8th Cir.) (§ 1B1.10 was not re ndered advisory by Booker , which does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings; § 1B1.10’s limitation on sentence-reduction authority is constitutional and enforceable), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct. 2746 (2009), and we reject his argument that Amendment 712 (which pre-existed Starks ) somehow “overruled” Starks

. Gillon also argues that his superseding i ndictment was defective, and he takes issue with various Guidelines calculations th at were made at the time of his original sentencing, including the drug-quantity cal culation and an obstruction-of-justice enhancement, among other things. Secti on 3582(c)(2), however, does not provide any-3- basis to raise such sentencing issues. See United States v. Harris , 574 F.3d 971, 972- 73 (8th Cir. 2009) (proceedings under § 3582( c) and § 1B1.10 do not constitute full resentencing and are not do-over of original se ntencing). The same is true as to the challenge to his indictment.
Finally, we reject Gillon’s remaining ar guments that he has been prejudiced in this matter by not having access to a law lib rary, and that Chief Judge Reade should have recused herself because of her re fusal to agree with him that Bookerapplied and to grant a greater reduction. See White v. Nat’l Football League , 585 F.3d 1129, 1138 (8th Cir. 2009) (denial of recusal motion reviewed for abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________